I was wondering that myself (and I don't pretend to know or work in this space) - how can you tell if a trade is 'covered', or when it is naked?
Seems like Banks have been lending money they don't actually have for years. And when one source to get the money folded, the whole chain ground to a halt. Seems like naked shorting is selling shares/stock you don't have too. And so in fact you may never be able to get hold of what you just sold? If you don't have it covered/borrowed or whatever, what actually happens if you need to find some and none are available? What if you don't have a hold or an option on the stock and there simply isn't any when everyone needs it? OK, eventually some will be available and you will pay a lot more and lose a lot more - which is why its a reckless trading technique.
So from a layman perspective - Merkel seems to have a valid point and I don't see that its such a bad thing - provided you can identify when it is, and isn't, naked. Why is it different to saying a bank needs a certain level of deposits to be able to lend virtual money.
21 May 2010 12:05 Read comment
Excellent perspective.
Many will jump at the chance to circumvent traditional banks, even if its riskier and sometimes more expensive - the perception and trust of mainstream FIs in general is extremely poor. Right now they are colluding with low savings interest rates but high lending rates (relatively, not historically), and high arrangement or management fees to boot.
But they will survive - protected as they are by the establishment and banking regulations that protect their positions and monopolies. These rules hamper alternatives to protect the consumer from here-today, gone-tomorrow schemes. It is the Banks longevity that counts - not many have gone bust compared to dotcom type newbies. And its one thing to buy something virtual in SecondLife, or spend a few cents buying digital content(music, games..) using those alternative schemes, but when it comes to getting a loan for your business or house (i.e. the big bucks) - you need the old school again. They really shouldn't be able to lose, in good times or bad!
21 May 2010 11:44 Read comment
Dean,
Care to indulge in sharing the possible strategy?
For a short time, it looked possible that Labour might offer the lot to the LibDems in order to secure a majority and prevent a theoretical requirement to stand down. But, thanks to Nick Clegg (LibDem), that possibility was completely scotched (it was too much of a stretch) and he was forced first to offer to stand down in 5 months time, and then to concede that a Tory/LibDem coalition beat his weak hand.
Personally, the coalition looks good. I like the idea of Clegg being deputy PM. Certainly less strange(and strained) than Prescott backing Blair.
13 May 2010 09:45 Read comment
Brett, I agree with the principle entirely. I implemented my first mBanking solution in 2001, when customers were asked and prepared to pay a small service charge. But Banks and Mobile Operators have always dithered when it comes to partnerships and Banks in particular tended not to dabble directly with mobile for years (worried about security mainly) - culminating first in text banking services and eventually some WAP/App banking.
Your point is the best - you cannot win if you are not playing the game. But too often the budget holder(business) think we cannot lose either. It takes more than a few customer requests, it takes tangible evidence of damage to the bottom line. I agree that it will help a lot to get some fresh thinking evangelists inside the business.
Mobiles and smartphones in particular (yes, brought into focus by the iPhone) are as important as your wallet, and could eventually replace it. Now that the mobile internet is open, the banks can move ahead with mobile services - but I think its always the security fear and what they don't know that holds them back.
12 May 2010 09:06 Read comment
The problem is not so much cost as revenue. mBanking doesn't generate real cash and although you can claim customer sat and retention and even adds, the banks (and the mobile operators) are sceptical about how tangible those things are compared to the cost of implementing, operating and evolving the service.
Secondly, like all surveys, if you ask a customer if they want something, they will say yes. Whether they will actually use it and check their balance daily is another matter. Banking is not daily like Facebook (unless you're a banker!).
I can get my PC/Browser Banking on my Google phone - a bit fiddly on a small screen, but at least its a familiar layout and I know where to look. An App would make it nicer, but I would't pay for it and I don't think it would tie me to my bank either.
11 May 2010 21:56 Read comment
I'm with you. I want to be able to fix things myself - be it a leaky tap, broken car, tricky excel formula or disinfecting a Windows machine.
Trouble with all these things is that its always better to get an expert who 'knows' and (importantly) has the tools. Otherwise you take too long yourself and end up bodging the job.
However, whilst I am envious of people with no brains but deep pockets who seem to get everything working sweetly in this way, I am secretly proud to know a bit (hopefully enough) about a lot of things and be a little self sufficient.
11 May 2010 09:38 Read comment
Agreed. I just made a comment on the PIN problem Blog along similar lines - if making a record of your PIN/Password is a no-no, then what constitutes an acceptable reminder? How would you even note a reminder for yourself for a password of "Qhos02!" for example. Begins with Q ? Or maybe "Quit whining about passwords TO remember!"
And what's with the call centres that attempt to authenticate you by asking your DOB and full address, and then proceed to administer your account for you on the phone? I could be anyone. Especially since so many sites ask you to register the same 'bank like' auth questions these days (just to look like they care about your security)? They could be spread around and sold like CC number lists. I still think a text alert or email everytime your account profile is updated is a must.
04 May 2010 09:32 Read comment
Call me cynical, but isn't it almost in the interests of the banks to leave this loophole open to them? Its a catch 22 - to be crystal clear with authentication and non-repudiation, a PIN is black and white. Much easier for a bank to judge than a physical signature for example. But to have even a few PINs means you must must some kind of note, log, system to record them somehow, and thereby provides the banks with a possible exit from liability in cases where they might really need it. Much easier to claim you have written down your PIN and invalidated any protection on the resulting transaction, than prove that they never expose your PIN internally for example.
I wonder what the law would say about PIN reminders and hints? Is that OK? (e.g. my favorite month and the year my dog died??)
04 May 2010 09:10 Read comment
Just update the internet banking UI and make it smarter and it'll look fine on your smartphone mini-browser. For the occasional times you need to do anything more than check your balance, you can get to your eBanking from your mobile. So the older style WAP banking presentation will die away, replaced with richer experience Banking Apps and updated eBanking.
20 Apr 2010 14:44 Read comment
Just look at all the companies that have gone, merged, been acquired etc from the front page alone. Change is the only true constant.
Even my old company is mentioned on that front page - and they were just acquired after a 'good' innings of 10+ years in the fray.
19 Apr 2010 17:39 Read comment
Welcome to Finextra. We use cookies to help us to deliver our services. You may change your preferences at our Cookie Centre.
Please read our Privacy Policy.